Download pips sure ea amazing from 500 to 2000 dollar in two month real account

[Trekkafara]

to make it clear: I've been testing this EA for almost two months now. In the first month, I used the same lot size as the developer on $500 demos. The DD was too high for me, so I simply started four new $1000 demo accounts with 1 setfile and starting lot 0.05

I'm also testing a demo account with 2, 3 4 and 8 setfiles.

 

[Trekkafara]

do your own tests with your preferred broker!

 

[nwltmr]

@Trekkafara bruh are you aware this is what happens in backtest with the 5 minute set?

yeah it's 90% modelling quality BUT so what?
have you backtested it with tickstory and if yes, are the results different?
this is supposed to be author's recommended settings.
not sure if these are the recommended results too.
just curious what's your experience with a simple backtest

 

[nwltmr]

1 minute set, both this test and the above one are with ic, 0.01 lots on 2k account.
looks like proper garbage to me but i'm open to being wrong

 

[Trekkafara]

as I said, 90% modelling quality is useless and waste of time. I don't have tickstory and I will not buy it. I use only Demo accounts with real trading condintions.

 

[JonnyScarface]

We all know why most sellers love to use backtesting results to sell their EAs

 

[nwltmr]

@Trekkafara boss, this might save you a lot of time and disappointment
you're forward testing in demo an ea that ruins accounts in backtest
is 90% modeling quality the same as real trading? obviously not
but i wouldn't go so far as calling it useless. i'd call it moderately reliable.
if you get multiple occasions of the same thing happening over and over again throughout different backtests you can safely guess it is very likely to happen in real trading too
do consider this as well - demo is not real trading either
you can have an ea run simultaneously live and in demo
sometimes there's a discrepancy between the two accounts - live will take trades that demo won't and vice versa.
if you keep testing this thing, do keep us posted on your results.
i'd be curious to follow.

 

[JonnyScarface]

I think quite a few of us have started trading on live accounts this week.
Or is it just me?

 

[Trekkafara]

I have 500€ cent live account too. I'm not worried about useless nonsense backtests! Sorry.

Why 90% modeling quality in MT4 is only limitedly reliable

In short, an MT4 backtest with 90% modeling quality is only mederately reieable - it can show general tendencies but cannot be rusted for accurate performance predictions.

Here is why: 90% modeling quality does not use real tick data! At 90% MT4 uses interpolated ticks generated from M1 candles, not real tick-by-tick market data. These synthetic ticks don't reflect the true intrabar price movement.

This leads to several issues: spread inaccuracies because spread is often constant in MT4 backtests, while real spread fluctate.

No realistic slippage Order execution is unrealistically perfect.

Stop-loss and Take-profit execution inaccuracies

Without real ticks, MT4 can't accurately determine whether price truly hit a level intrabar.

Real-world frictions are missing entirely.

For good results you need: Tickstory, Tick Data Suite, Dukascopy tick data, TureTick/AlgoSeek (professional grade) for example


With 90% modeling quality, you can achieve fantastic results with many EA's, but in real trading you will only have maybe losses.

Some fraudulent EA developers even create EA's that achieve absolutely fantastic results in backtesting with 90% modeling quality, so that novice traders buy these EA's and only then realize that they are simply garbage.

DON'T TRUST ANY RESULTS WITHOUT AT LEAST 99% MODELING QUALITY! When you see 90% or "not available" instead of 99%-99.9% RUN AWAY, DON'T BUY THIS SHIT!

 

[Trekkafara]

The shorter the timeframe in which the backtest was performed, the more unrealistic and unreliable the result.

As I said, open demo account let EA run for at least 1 week and then do a backtest!!!

 

[Trekkafara]

I spent almost the entire day logged into the developer account in the London and New York sessions to compare the trades with my demos. In most cases, the trades were opened at the same second, or at least within five seconds of each other, even with different brokers. A simple backtest just can't provide these kinds of insights!

But again, do your own tests, but please don't trust these nonsensical backtests! Neither in a positive nor in a negative sense. I can only repeat it again and again: it's simply a waste of time!